4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 30 September 1999 at about 12.15 p.m. the applicant attended the funeral of a prisoner, who had been allegedly killed in an operation by the security forces at the Ulucanlar Prison in Ankara.
6.  According to the incident report dated 30 September 1999, the police gave a warning and asked the group to disperse. However, the demonstrators refused to obey the warnings. They continued shouting slogans and marched towards the Karacaahmet Cemetery. The police had to intervene and arrested thirty-nine people, including the applicant.
7.  On the same day, at 1.30 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital. In his report, the doctor noted the following:
“Sensitivity on the left lumbar region and on the lower part of the left hemithorax has been observed.”
8.  At 7.30 p.m. the same day, the applicant's statement was taken in the hospital by two policemen. In this statement, the applicant explained that he was retired. He maintained that, while he was sitting in a café, he had heard that there was a funeral and decided to participate; therefore he joined the group. He was however caught between the demonstrators and the police and fell on the ground. He denied being involved in the demonstration.
9.  On 30 March 2000 the applicant's lawyers filed a complaint with the Üsküdar public prosecutor's office against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant during his arrest.
10.  On 27 April 2001 the Üsküdar public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. In his decision, the public prosecutor referred to the applicant's police statement, in which he maintained that he had been injured as he had fallen during the police intervention. The public prosecutor further stated that the police intervention and the force used during the intervention was lawful and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
11.  On 4 December 2001 one of the applicant's lawyers filed an objection against the public prosecutor's decision. In the petition, it was contended that the public prosecutor had failed to conduct an adequate investigation as he had failed to order a medical examination of the applicant and had not heard the applicant or other witnesses.
12.  On 8 January 2002 the Kadıköy Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection.
13.  On 1 October 1999 the Üsküdar public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Üsküdar Criminal Court against thirty‑nine persons, including the applicant. The prosecutor accused the applicant and the other co-accused under Article 32 of Law No. 2911 of taking part in an illegal demonstration.
14.  In the hearing held on 20 December 1999, the applicant stated before the Üsküdar Criminal Court that he had heard that a press declaration would be made outside the Cemevi[1] concerning a prisoner who had been killed in Ankara. He therefore took a bus to go to Üsküdar Cemevi and, as he stepped down from the bus, he was arrested by the police. The applicant also stated that he had been beaten during his arrest and denied his police statement.
15.  On 16 April 2001 the Üsküdar Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment and a fine.
16.  On 27 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Üsküdar Criminal Code, following the adoption of the New Criminal Code on 1 June 2005.
17.  On 25 May 2006 the Üsküdar Criminal Court decided to terminate the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the five year statutory time-limit under Article 102 of the Criminal Code had expired.